Thank you very much for all the support with the blog over the last year, and for all the contributions, encouragements and comments. I look forward to more NT Gateway blogging in the new year and in the mean time wish all my readers a very happy Christmas. For those who don't celebrate Christmas, my very best wishes.

It's an email debate between three of the top brass, John Kloppenborg, Alan Segal and Larry Hurtado. I've not had a chance to read it yet myself (and it's still ongoing) because I am on the road, but look forward to checking it out when I get back.

It will perhaps not surprise the reader that I was a little taken aback by the rather strong tone of Prof. Lüdemann's response, some of which I thought went a little further than the kind of civil scholarly discourse I in general tend to prefer. I suspect that this was at least partly due to some misunderstanding of my own tone, which was attempting, at points, to be light hearted and a bit tongue-in-cheek. Of course one of the problems with blogging is that the intended tone does not always come out right, and what I am writing with a smile may be read with a frown. One of the reasons for the elements of levity in my response was that I found Lüdemann's tone in the press release so strident. So when I criticize Lüdemann's use of the term "pious fairy tales", e.g. by commenting that we have an angel rather than a fairy on the top of our Christmas tree, this is not to be taken too seriously. And when Lüdemann comments on my reference to troubles communicating with the 8th Century BCE Isaiah, where I mention the universal translator and babel fish (references to Star Trek and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the uninitiated), I am simply having a bit of fun, so I take it as a compliment that Prof Lüdemann finds them "silly and irrelevant", which was the point. Perhaps I've been watching too much Monty Python since I came to the USA (it's the prime staple of BBC America).

I had commented on Lüdemann's insistence on "ten unquestionable facts", and what "historical research" had "demonstrated once and for all" by suggesting that this was stated too strongly. What historical research can do is "to show that elements in the story are implausible or problematic", to which Lüdemann responds:

This is simply carping about blunt and straightforward talk that has no time for the nuances and niceties of scholastic debate. Soften a couple of phrases, add a few qualifiers and weasel-wording extenuations, if you like; but it will all come down to the same thing. [I have changed to lower-case here and throughout, which I find easier to read than upper case.]

I do not share quite so low a view of "the nuances and niceties of scholastic debate" and think that precision in our language is important when we are engaging in scholarship, especially when we are encouraging our students to do the same. I don't think that it is "qualifiers and weasel-wording extenuations" to describe the academic task as precisely and clearly as possible. To be a good historian is not only to know what we can say about the past with confidence, but also to know what the limits of the historian are. I am keen to make clear that my own attitude to doing ancient history has been formed in interaction with Prof. Lüdemann's work; I have learnt much from his own cautious approach to history, and I frequently engage with it in my teaching (especially on Pauline chronology).

Later, I asked "Is talk of "the Christmas story" itself unhelpful when one is talking about Matthew and Luke?" to which Lüdemann responded, "One cannot determine what this question means". I was a bit terse there. I was simply wondering whether it is helpful to talk about "the Christmas story" in a press release, the aim of which is presumably to communicate about the Biblical narratives to a broad audience, some of whom would not realize that "the Christmas story" was in fact a harmonized, popularized narrative based on elements derived from Matthew and Luke. It's not a particularly important point; I just wondered whether it gave the impression that you could go to the Bible and find something resembling "the Christmas story" that we see in nativity plays and the like.

More importantly, I went on to write:

Some of the Biblical verses alluded to by Matthew are such an odd fit with the events narrated that it is difficult to imagine that Matthew, or anyone else, "derived" the narrative from the prophecies.

And Lüdemann responded:

Call it "created” or "derived” or "inspired by”; it makes little enough difference. This admission shows beyond cavil that narrative elements have their roots in the Hebrew Bible and have resulted from a process of radical revision.

My point is that given that some of Matthew's scriptural citations are a relatively poor fit for the material they are supposed to be confirming, it seems likely that at some points Matthew has not derived the tradition from the prophecy. Rather, the tradition sometimes comes first, and the Biblical citation comes afterwards. Whereas Lüdemann is working with a kind of "prophecy historicized" model, I am suggesting that sometimes the exact reverse is taking place, and we are dealing with tradition scripturalized. Let me clarify that I do not think that this is happening all the way through Matthew's Birth Narrative -- the prophecy historicized model sometimes works well, perhaps most obviously in the case of the birth in Bethlehem, which, I would guess is a prophecy historicized because it is a good fit. But there are other cases where the prophecy historicized model does not work, and the best example is Matt. 2.23, on which I commented as follows:

Where does it say that the Messiah would live in Nazara? Matthew is weakly scripturalizing the tradition he knows.

And Lüdemann responds:

To be sure, in this one case, the author has manufactured out of whole cloth a citation in order to give scriptural authority to a simple biographical fact: Jesus came from Nazareth. Invention? Lie? Call it what you will.

We are agreed, then, on the direction here, that the tradition (Jesus was from Nazara) has been scripturalized (though my preference is to avoid language like "invention" and "lie"). What I am suggesting is that this interesting, agreed phenomenon right at the end of Matthew's Birth Narrative, could give us a clue to what is going on elsewhere too.

Another particularly good contender for the phenomenon of tradition scripturalized (i.e. a pre-Matthean tradition that is overlaid with Matthew's own scriptural reference) is, I would argue, at 1.23, where Isaiah 7.14 LXX, "A virgin shall conceive . . ." is given as the scriptural text that explicates Jesus' unusual conception out of wedlock. If this tradition was well known -- and Jane Schaberg and others make a very good case that it was -- then Matthew has not derived the story of Jesus' conception from Isaiah 7.14. On the contrary, the tradition came first and the scripture that for Matthew explained it came afterwards. I think that Lüdemann in fact largely agrees with this scenario:

Granted that this line of argument has further support in Matthew’s curious inclusion in Jesus’ genealogy of four problematical pregnancies (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), the Isaiah quote, coming as it does from perhaps the most revered of the prophets, is hardly thereby to be discounted.

The four women are, following Schaberg and others, no doubt mentioned by Matthew because of unusual sexual unions outside of wedlock, and it seems likely that this points to a pre-Matthean tradition of Jesus' conception outside of wedlock. And if that is the case, the story of Jesus' conception is clearly not derived from, or invented on the basis of, Isaiah 7.14.

Lüdemann is concerned, though, that I may be ignorant of the issues connected with Isaiah 7.14 LXX:

Here Goodacre seems to be unaware that the Hebrew almah ("young woman", as opposed to betulah, "virgin”) was rendered by the Greek parthenos (often but not always intending "virgin”) in the Septuagint. Since Matthew apparently relied on the Septuagint, he would quite naturally cite it as evidence of a special birth.

The latter clause here captures nicely the process of scripturalization, that Matthew "would quite naturally cite it as evidence of a special birth" -- he cites the text as evidence; he does not derive the story from there. Of course Matthew is working from the LXX of Isaiah 7.14 here, and of course I am aware of basics like that. My point is that even the LXX of Isaiah 7.14 is not especially appropriate -- it's nothing to do with the birth of a Messiah in the distant future. So Matt. 1.23 is a relatively weak scripturalization of the tradition, and my guess is that Matthew goes to it because he likes the "Emmanuel" part, which famously gets its pair at the end of the Gospel, 28.20.

On the issue of Jesus' birthplace, as I indicated before I am inclined to agree with Lüdemann. But I dislike the language of "unquestionable fact" when we do not have so much as a tradition to the effect that Jesus was born in Nazareth, let alone birth records. If there is some scope for doubt -- and who knows whether Jesus might have been born in Cana, Nain or Bethsaida or anywhere else -- then it is incautious to speak of birth in Nazareth as "unquestionable fact". Ancient history is about nuanced judgements.

Regarding angels in the story, Lüdemann had said that they "derive from primitive mythology". I facetiously mentioned fairies (referencing my comments at the beginning of the post) but more seriously added that the "derive from" is a little too strong given that even today, a person with a religious world view might articulate their experience of the world by using language of angels, demons, etc. The language often encapsulates or masks a description of reality that could be articulated using scientific language. In other words, the presence of religious language is not itself an index of lack of historicity. It is only an indication of the kind of world view witnessed in the text. Lüdemann's response, which suggests that I am splitting hairs and attempting to bolster a tenuous case, does not take seriously the nature of my objection, which is that Lüdemann's remarks were overstated, and his method questionable.

Lüdemann also commented on the lack of Magi in Luke's account, to which I responded that Luke would not be expected to include Magi given his known attitude to them in Acts, to which Lüdemann respnds:

Here is another irrelevant point, an objection for the sake of objecting. Their absence from Luke’s account was adduced only to show the irreconcilability (and therefore the all but certainly fictitious nature) of the two accounts.

I don't think that this deals with the point. If Luke knew of the Magi, one would not expect him to include them given his antipathy towards Magi in general, so their absence from Luke at best simply reminds us of that antipathy. It can't tell us anything about the historicity or otherwise of the tradition in Matthew. Difference between Matthew and Luke cannot in itself be an index of lack of historicity, nor does Lüdemann treat it this way in other contexts.

Overall, this response, in addition to my previous comments, may give the impression that there is more distance between Lüdemann and me on the Birth Narratives than there actually is. What caused me to respond initially were what I regarded as some overstatement and unhelpful generalization which ultimately detract from the potential plausibility of the case. But my guess is that one of the reasons for issuing a press release is to generate not only attention but also discussion and intellectual exchange, and it is in that spirit, and in the appreciation of Lüdemann's scholarship, that I offer this response.

Update (19.41):

Response to Mark Goodacre

I agree that the two of us are not as far apart as our contentious words may have suggested. I do look forward to further mutually respectful exchanges with Professor Goodacre on matters of mutual interest.

Monday, December 19, 2005

I have just received this response from Gerd Lüdemann to my comments on his press release (The Christmas Stories are Pious Fairy Tales) and Gerd asks if I would place this in my blog, which I am of course happy to do. I am knee-deep in grading (that's what they call "marking" here) at the moment but I am looking forward to commenting later. The message below is as I received it from Prof. Lüdemann, with my original blog post in lower case (but combining parts of the press release and my comments) and Prof. Lüdemann's responses in upper case:

On Biblical Theology, Jim West gives the text of Gerd Lüdemann's thoughts on the Christmas story. A look at Lüdemann's homepage gives the text too, under a press release headed:

The Christmas Stories are Pious Fairy Tales

I'm not sure what's wrong with piety, and you'd expect the New Testament to feature some piety, and I don't think there are any fairies in the Birth Narratives (or at least we still call the doll on the top of our Christmas tree an angel rather than a fairy). Some of Lüdemann's content I am inclined to agree with (which NT scholars would not?), but there is something about the overstatement and the tone ("supposed Son of God", "unquestionable facts", "lies") makes me all the more keen to argue against at least elements in it. So here are a few thoughts:

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: APPARENTLY GOODACRE IS UNAWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN CONNOTATION BETWEEN "PIOUS” (AS IN PIOUS MYTHS OR PIOUS FAIRY TALES) AND "PIETY”. THE FORMER IMPLIES EXCESSIVE CREDULITY; THE LATTER REFERS TO DEVOUT FAITH. HE SEEMS TO SUFFER FROM A SIMILAR CONFUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE TERM "FAIRY TALE,” WHICH INDICATES AN INCREDIBLE STORY WITH OR WITHOUT FAIRIES IN THE CAST OF CHARACTERS. I SUGGEST THAT IN BOTH CASES HE IS GRASPING FOR STRAWS WITH WHICH TO CREATE OBJECTIONS.

The biblical accounts of the birth of the Jesus, the supposed Son of God, are mere inventions and have little relation to what really happened. Historical research has demonstrated this once and for all. Ten unquestionable facts argue against their historical credibility: Historical research has not "demonstrated" any of the elements here. What historical research can do is to show that elements in the story are implausible or problematic, but it misrepresents the historical task here to claim so much for it. Nor are the ten assertions all "facts", let alone unquestionable facts".

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THIS IS SIMPLY CARPING ABOUT BLUNT AND STRAIGHTFORWARD TALK THAT HAS NO TIME FOR THE NUANCES AND NICETIES OF SCHOLASTIC DEBATE. SOFTEN A COUPLE OF PHRASES, ADD A FEW QUALIFIERS AND WEASEL-WORDING EXTENUATIONS, IF YOU LIKE; BUT IT WILL ALL COME DOWN TO THE SAME THING.

1. Written centuries earlier, the quoted words of Old Testament prophets did not predict the coming of Jesus, but referred to events and persons in their past or immediate future. They would have been shocked by the notion that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of their prophecies. Perhaps so, but I am always puzzled by comments about how figures living centuries before later figures would have been "shocked" by what they saw. I can't even begin to get my head around the idea of Isaiah being told about what was going to happen 700 years later. His seeing the time machine would surely be a far greater "shock" than the substance of what Lüdemann would be able to convey. If I were in the time machine, I'd definitely want to make sure I had a universal translator switched on, or a babel fish in my ear because I wouldn't trust my 8th C. BCE spoken Hebrew.

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: TO OBJECT ON THE GROUNDS OF TRANSLATION PROBLEMS IS SILLY AND IRRELEVANT. TO BE PUZZLED BY THE IDEA OF AN ANCIENT PERSON TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF THE MODERN WORLD SHOWS LITTLE MORE, I THINK, THAN A WEAKNESS IN IMAGINATIVE POWERS. AGAIN SAND IS BEING THROWN INTO PEOPLE’S EYES IN LIEU OF ARGUMENT.

2. The New Testament authors derived most events of the Christmas story from prophecies of the Old Testament and misrepresented their original intent in order to make them seem to point to Jesus. Is talk of "the Christmas story" itself unhelpful when one is talking about Matthew and Luke?

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: ONE CANNOT DETERMINE WHAT THIS QUESTION MEANS.

And far from an "unquestionable fact", this is actually highly debatable. Some of the Biblical verses alluded to by Matthew are such an odd fit with the events narrated that it is difficult to imagine that Matthew, or anyone else, "derived" the narrative from the prophecies.

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: CALL IT "CREATED” OR "DERIVED” OR "INSPIRED BY”; IT MAKES LITTLE ENOUGH DIFFERENCE. THIS ADMISSION SHOWS BEYOND CAVIL THAT NARRATIVE ELEMENTS HAVE THEIR ROOTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND HAVE RESULTED FROM A PROCESS OF RADICAL REVISION.

On the contrary, the opposite process, of tradition scripturalized is far more plausible. e.g. Matt. 2.23 -- where does it say that the Messiah would live inNazara? Matthew is weakly scripturalizing the tradition he knows.

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: TO BE SURE, IN THIS ONE CASE, THE AUTHOR HAS MANUFACTURED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH A CITATION IN ORDER TO GIVE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY TO A SIMPLE BIOGRAPHICAL FACT: JESUS CAME FROM NAZARETH. INVENTION? LIE? CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL.

3. The notion that Mary's pregnancy did not result from intercourse with a male is a canard. The claim of a virgin birth has two sources: the mistranslation of "young woman" by "virgin" (in a passage that clearly did not refer to Jesus!), and the desire of Christians to place their revered leader on the same level as other ancient "sons of God" who were likewise born without participation of a male. The first point is weak and self-defeating. If "young woman" is mistranslated as "virgin" in Matthew, then Isaiah 7.14 can hardly be the prophecy from which the story of the conception of Jesus is derived.

-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: HERE GOODACRE SEEMS TO BE UNAWARE THAT THE HEBREW ALMAH ("YOUNG WOMAN, AS OPPOSED TO BETULAH, "VIRGIN”) WAS RENDERED BY THE GREEK PARTHENOS (OFTEN BUT NOT ALWAYS INTENDING "VIRGIN”) IN THE SEPTUAGINT. SINCE MATTHEW APPARENTLY RELIED ON THE SEPTUAGINT, HE WOULD QUITE NATURALLY CITE IT AS EVIDENCE OF A SPECIAL BIRTH.

No one would have derived the virginal conception story from that verse for the very reason Lüdemann adduces. More likely is that scripturalization is at work here -- Matthew has a tradition of illegitimate birth that he is attempting to explain and defend by providing a scriptural precedent. The one he chooses is not especially appropriate, but it is the best he can do, and has the advantage of allowing him to bring in "Emmanuel".

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: GRANTED THAT THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT HAS FURTHER SUPPORT IN MATTHEW’SCURIOUS INCLUSION IN JESUS’ GENEALOGY OF FOUR PROBLEMATICAL PREGNANCIES (TAMAR, RAHAB, RUTH, AND BATHSHEBA), THE ISAIAH QUOTE, COMING AS IT DOES FROM PERHAPS THE MOST REVERED OF THE PROPHETS, IS HARDLY THEREBY TO BE DISCOUNTED.

4. The reported worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus did not occur.

5. The reported murder of children in Bethlehem ordered by Herod theGreat did not occur.

I'd prefer to state it a little less forthrightly, e.g. there is no other evidence in ancient texts for these, they are historically unlikely etc.

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THAT’S FINE; WAFFLE A BIT IF YOU LIKE. I PREFER NOT TO. I ALSO PREFER NOT TO MAKE CASES ON THE BASIS OF LINGUISTIC PREFERENCES.

6. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem. I'd be inclined to think that that is likely, but it's not an "unquestionable fact". It's one of those don't knows. The historian surely needs to keep open the possibility that it was Jesus' birth in Bethlehem that suggested to him and his family that he might be something special.

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: A PIOUS HOPE LIKELY UNDERGIRDS THIS INSISTENCE, BUT IT IS SO THIN AS TO BE EASILY DISMISSED – UNLESS ONE WERE WRITING A LENGTHY DISQUISITION RATHER THAN A ONE-PAGE ARTICLE.

7. The angels in the Christmas story derive from primitive mythology. Shouldn't that be "fairies"? "Derive from" is again too strong. Think only of contemporary stories told of meetings with angels in which it is the religious language being employed that potentially masks a story that could be told in other, non-religious language.

-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: CAN IT BE THAT MR. GOODACRE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAIRIES AND ANGELS? AND AGAIN, IF HE WOULD PREFER "MODELED UPON” INSTEAD OF "DERIVED FROM,” I WILL ACCEPT THE CHANGE. IT AMOUNTS TO A DISTINCTION THAT IS TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSE WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. WHY MUST WE SPLIT HAIRS? IS IT TO REGISTER A PLETHORA OF OBJECTIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER A TENUOUS CASE?

8. The shepherds who kept watch over their flocks are idealized representatives of the poor and outcast, persons emphasized by Luke. They do not appear in Matthew's story. Nobody said they did.

-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THIS IS MORE SAND IN THE EYES MASKING AS ARGUMENT.

I think that that's a good reading of Luke -- the whole Birth Narrative rings with the good news to the poor that is so characteristic theme in Luke. But it's worth bearing in mind that for many scholars (not me), the earliest stratum of Jesus tradition, in Q1 and Thomas, has "Blessed are the poor", and so the concern for the poor is bedrock, not Lucan redaction.

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: GIVEN THE SUPPOSITIONAL NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE, ONE IS IMPRESSED THAT MR. GOODACRE CAN CERTIFY WHICH IT IS.

9. The magicians from the East are idealized representatives of the Gentiles and of eternal wisdom. They do not appear in Luke's story. Well, of course they don't appear in Luke's story. We know from Acts that Luke doesn't like Magi; one of its villains is a Magus.

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: HERE IS ANOTHER IRRELEVANT POINT, AN OBJECTION FOR THE SAKE OF OBJECTING. THEIR ABSENCE FROM LUKE’S ACCOUNT WAS ADDUCED ONLY TO SHOW THE IRRECONCILABILITY (AND THEREFORE THE ALL BUT CERTAINLY FICTITIOUS NATURE) OF THE TWO ACCOUNTS.

10. The story of the star of Bethlehem is a fiction intended to emphasize the importance of Jesus - and, of course, to provide an entrance cue for the magicians from the East. I've nothing to say there, except that again it's not "an unquestionable fact"; it's a reminder of the kind of language and imagery that is being employed in Matthew's Birth Narrative.

COMMENT LÜDEMANN: YES, AN IMAGERY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HISTORICAL FACTS. THAT WAS MY POINT ALL ALONG.

Thanks for doing that. I thought about responding to point-by-point too,but I found L.'s tone too "off-putting" for me to engage it.# posted by Stephen C. Carlson : 12:26 AM

I AM SORRY THAT MR. CARLSON "... FOUND [MY] TONE TOO OFF-PUTTING TO ENGAGE IT." I WILL OFFER HIM, HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING THOUGHTS: I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU ENGAGE MY TONE, SIR, BUT MY IDEAS AND MY ARGUMENTS; AND I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU PUT OFF DOING SO BECAUSE YOU ARE PUT OFF BY SO GOSSAMER A THING AS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY RHETORICAL STYLE. HAVING SMELLED WHAT SEEMS A FALLACIOUS PROPOSAL, YOU SHOULD NOT BE SO EASILY PUT OFF THE SCENT. IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DETERMINE JUST WHAT YOU CONSIDER ERRONEOUS AND ATTEMPT TO REBUT IT. THAT IS MORE HONEST AND FORTHCOMING THAN SIMPLY "PILING ON" BY SECONDING THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS.

AND AS FOR BEING ANNOYED OR OFFENDED -- OR WHATEVER YOU MEAN BY "OFF-PUTTING" -- PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT LIKE MANY OTHERS I AM EQUALLY RESENTFUL OF ATTEMPTS ON THE PART OF ORGANIZED RELIGION TO IMPOSE OUTMODED MYTHS AND CREEDS ON A PUBLIC AND A BODY POLITIC WHO PREFER TO LEAD THEIR LIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATIONALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY BASED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE, MORALITY, AND ASPIRATION.

I'm not sure what's wrong with piety, and you'd expect the New Testament to feature some piety, and I don't think there are any fairies in the Birth Narratives (or at least we still call the doll on the top of our Christmas tree an angel rather than a fairy). Some of Lüdemann's content I am inclined to agree with (which NT scholars would not?), but there is something about the overstatement and the tone ("supposed Son of God", "unquestionable facts", "lies") makes me all the more keen to argue against at least elements in it. So here are a few thoughts:

The biblical accounts of the birth of the Jesus, the supposed Son of God, are mere inventions and have little relation to what really happened. Historical research has demonstrated this once and for all. Ten unquestionable facts argue against their historical credibility:

Historical research has not "demonstrated" any of the elements here. What historical research can do is to show that elements in the story are implausible or problematic, but it misrepresents the historical task here to claim so much for it. Nor are the ten assertions all "facts", let alone "unquestionable facts".

1. Written centuries earlier, the quoted words of Old Testament prophets did not predict the coming of Jesus, but referred to events and persons in their past or immediate future. They would have been shocked by the notion that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of their prophecies.

Perhaps so, but I am always puzzled by comments about how figures living centuries before later figures would have been "shocked" by what they saw. I can't even begin to get my head around the idea of Isaiah being told about what was going to happen 700 years later. His seeing the time machine would surely be a far greater "shock" than the substance of what Lüdemann would be able to convey. If I were in the time machine, I'd definitely want to make sure I had a universal translator switched on, or a babel fish in my ear because I wouldn't trust my 8th C. BCE spoken Hebrew.

2. The New Testament authors derived most events of the Christmas story from prophecies of the Old Testament and misrepresented their original intent in order to make them seem to point to Jesus.

Is talk of "the Christmas story" itself unhelpful when one is talking about Matthew and Luke? And far from an "unquestionable fact", this is actually highly debatable. Some of the Biblical verses alluded to by Matthew are such an odd fit with the events narrated that it is difficult to imagine that Matthew, or anyone else, "derived" the narrative from the prophecies. On the contrary, the opposite process, of tradition scripturalized is far more plausible. e.g. Matt. 2.23 -- where does it say that the Messiah would live in Nazara? Matthew is weakly scripturalizing the tradition he knows.

3. The notion that Mary's pregnancy did not result from intercourse with a male is a canard. The claim of a virgin birth has two sources: the mistranslation of "young woman" by "virgin" (in a passage that clearly did not refer to Jesus!), and the desire of Christians to place their revered leader on the same level as other ancient "sons of God" who were likewise born without participation of a male.

The first point is weak and self-defeating. If "young woman" is mistranslated as "virgin" in Matthew, then Isaiah 7.14 can hardly be the prophecy from which the story of the conception of Jesus is derived. No one would have derived the virginal conception story from that verse for the very reason Lüdemann adduces. More likely is that scripturalization is at work here -- Matthew has a tradition of illegitimate birth that he is attempting to explain and defend by providing a scriptural precedent. The one he chooses is not especially appropriate, but it is the best he can do, and has the advantage of allowing him to bring in "Emmanuel".

4. The reported worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus did not occur. 5. The reported murder of children in Bethlehem ordered by Herod the Great did not occur.

I'd prefer to state it a little less forthrightly, e.g. there is no other evidence in ancient texts for these, they are historically unlikely etc.

6. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.

I'd be inclined to think that that is likely, but it's not an "unquestionable fact". It's one of those don't knows. The historian surely needs to keep open the possibility that it was Jesus' birth in Bethlehem that suggested to him and his family that he might be something special.

7. The angels in the Christmas story derive from primitive mythology.

Shouldn't that be "fairies"? "Derive from" is again too strong. Think only of contemporary stories told of meetings with angels in which it is the religious language being employed that potentially masks a story that could be told in other, non-religious language.

8. The shepherds who kept watch over their flocks are idealized representatives of the poor and outcast, persons emphasized by Luke. They do not appear in Matthew's story.

I think that that's a good reading of Luke -- the whole Birth Narrative rings with the good news to the poor that is so characteristic theme in Luke. But it's worth bearing in mind that for many scholars (not me), the earliest stratum of Jesus tradition, in Q1 and Thomas, has "Blessed are the poor", and so the concern for the poor is bedrock, not Lucan redaction.

9. The magicians from the East are idealized representatives of the Gentiles and of eternal wisdom. They do not appear in Luke's story.

Well, of course they don't appear in Luke's story. We know from Acts that Luke doesn't like Magi; one of its villains is a Magus.

10. The story of the star of Bethlehem is a fiction intended to emphasize the importance of Jesus - and, of course, to provide an entrance cue for the magicians from the East.

I've nothing to say there, except that again it's not "an unquestionable fact"; it's a reminder of the kind of language and imagery that is being employed in Matthew's Birth Narrative.

As a member of the advisory board, I have been lobbying now for the last eighteen months or so for several simple things that in my opinion will improve the journal:

(1) Archives of previous issues. The individual articles are still available, but there is nowhere to browse through previous issues. I think that this acts as a disincentive to scholars to write for the forum -- articles are not "visible" for long enough. I think it would be useful to have specific issue archives, e.g. a link to "previous issues" on the first page, then an archive page with links to each issue and contents pages.

(2) More letters and reader comments should be encouraged since this will make it feel more like a "forum".

(3) Contact details: providing contact details would encourage people to get in touch, to contribute their own materials without every article having to be invited, as at present. Many newspapers, journals etc. have email addresses at the bottom of each article to encourage people to get in touch; but the forum should really have some contact details prominently. Indeed,if you click "contact us" on the main page (bottom), it takes you to a page that doesn't even mention the forum.

So far I have not had any success on these, but I've had some encouragement that (1) at least is in process.

The SBL Annual Meeting Call for Papers went live yesterday (15th). Or at least all the programme chairs were encouraged to get our calls for papers on-line by yesterday. In fact it looks like slim pickings at the moment. But some are available and here's the link:

Jim West draws attention to the call from the Jesus, John and History section. Perhaps I might draw attention to our short call for papers in the Synoptics Section:

Synoptic GospelsProgram Unit Type: SectionAccepting Papers? Yes

Call For Papers: The Synoptic Gospels section is planning a themed session on the Birth Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Participation in that session is by invitation of the steering committee only. In addition, paper proposals are being accepted for at least one open session. You are encouraged to submit your proposals on any subject relevant to the study of the Synoptic Gospels. Please make offers through the SBL Website only.

Others will already have mentioned this by now, but I've been away from the blogging machine for a couple of days and this is the first opportunity I've had to mention it, the new location for Phil Harland's blog. Don't forget to update your blogrolls and your links:

The latter is an article by Wright which explains how the oratorio came about, as part of the Lichfield Festival in July 2000 (the Lichfield Festival is a wonderful annual musical event and in my teenage and early twenties I often used to go, since I lived just thirty minutes drive from Lichfield). What's new is that the work has now been recorded and released on CD, just in time for the Christmas market. Given my own links with the Midlands, it's a pleasure to see that the recording has been made by the Birmingham Bach Choir.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Reform PartyA British theologian takes another stab at it.BY JOHN WILSON

. . . . This scholar contends that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation--Martin Luther especially--misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith. A self-described Reformed theologian, he proposes nothing less than a reformation of the Reformation, 500 years on--and he does so by appealing to the Reformers' own motto, sola scriptura, "going back to scripture over against all human tradition." . . . .

. . . . It is this unusual combination of prodigious scholarly achievement and pastoral concern that makes Dr. Wright's influence so pervasive. But not everyone is thrilled. When a scholar claims that his tradition has gotten one of its fundamental teachings wrong, some alarm-ringing is to be expected.

Friday, December 09, 2005

Since moving to the US, NPR (National Public Radio) has become part of my staple diet. It's no Radio 4 (what could be?), but it has some good programmes, one of which is the Diane Rehm Show. This programme was new to me when I arrived here, but it turns out that it's a real institution and has been going for years. It allows plenty of time for interviews and call-ins with guests of all stripes, politicians, biographers, academics and so on. Yesterday's guest (with thanks to Gail Dawson on Xtalk for the "heads up") was Bart Ehrman and you can listen to the archive on-line here:

It's well worth a listen, with questions about the Birth Narratives, the crucifixion stories, women, homosexuality, and some of Erhman's own autobiography, from evangelical to "happy agnostic". There's a mention too of David Parker (not by name but "friend in Birmingham) concerning the Living Text of the Gospels.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

I was horrified to read of the assault on Paul Mirecki on Hypotyposeis, and the follow-up posts there. Paul Mirecki is Professor in the Department of Religion at the University of Kansas, and has been the subject of media reports recently on a course he was apparently to offer on "Intelligent Design and Creationism", subsequently withdrawn because of unfortunate remarks Mirecki made in a leaked email. Stephen Carlson mentions his work on Charles W. Hedrick and Paul A. Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient Gospel (Calif. Classical Library; Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1999); he's also made his reputation on the study of magic and ritual in the ancient world, e.g. P. Mirecki and M. Meyer (eds.) Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2002).

Rausch said she last saw Mirecki at the religious studies department’s monthly faculty meeting on Monday and noticed “big swollen spots” on his face.

“It transformed his face,” she said.

Jesse Plous, New York senior, and Tiffany Jeffers, Shawnee senior, are enrolled in Mirecki’s Dead Sea Scrolls class. They said they didn’t notice bruises or scratches when they met for class at 12:30 p.m. Monday.

Lindsay Mayer, Holbrook, Ariz., junior, another student in the class, said she might have seen a small bruise on the side of his face, but said injuries weren’t extremely noticeable.

Mirecki didn’t show up for class on Wednesday. The students said Mirecki had never mentioned the controversy in class.

“It’s a good class, it really is,” said Plous. “It’s too bad he’s been steeped in controversy. I hope it pans out for the guy.”

Perhaps because I am now in American higher education myself, I find this report pretty depressing. The thought that a professor has now had to absent himself from class because of media harrassment, and that his colleagues and students are being interviewed on his character and integrity, is a very unhappy situation. I have long since ceased from releasing any personal information (address, phone number etc.) on phone-books, the web and so on (and I am surprised that Mirecki has been less careful) and this story hardly discourages me from that kind of course of action.

Update (Sunday, 01.34): Jim Davila has a superb post on the topic on Paleojudaica and it includes a couple of new fullish newspaper reports:

I've been meaning to add my congratulations to Michael Bird of Euangelion for the award of his doctorate (the doctor is in!). His thesis sounds fascinating and I hope it will not be too long before it's available in published format.

Monday, December 05, 2005

I taught a class on 1 Corinthians on Friday, and I began thinking about the contrast between 1 Cor. 8 and 10, a contrast that has always bothered me:

1 Cor. 8.4-6: "4. Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one." 5 Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (NRSV)

1 Cor. 10.19-22: 19 What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (NRSV)

There is a seemingly irreconcileable contrast here. What does Paul think? That idols have no existence or that they are in fact demons? Is the position of 1 Cor. 10 in conflict with the position of 1 Cor. 8? I was at a paper at the Duke NT colloquium a few weeks ago at which Joel Marcus was talking on the general topic of idolatry in the New Testament and it occurred to me that one way around the difficulty of the contrast between 1 Cor. 8 and 10 would be as follows. In the ancient world, demons were thought to inhabit empty spaces, to fill voids, to exploit nothingness. Could it be that the demons of 1 Cor. 10 exploit the empty spaces, the voids of 1 Cor. 8? Since, for Paul, pagan gods have no existence, since there is no God but one, the idols are empty, void, representations of nothing. Is the underlying thought that the demons take up occupation in that empty space, that void? Do they exploit the absence?

Update (9.57): lots of useful comments have been added to this post (8 so far), all worth reading. Mike Thompson also emails:

Mark, on 1 Cor 8 & 10 I'm not sure the problem is so acute, or perhaps I'm missing something. What if ouden in 8.4 is a predicate, i.e. 'an idol is nothing'? In other words, it doesn't have the power or priority that the one (true) God has; an idol counts for nothing. Paul isn't denying the existence of idols in 8.4, but their power/essence/status etc in comparison to YHWH. On your reading, 8.5 would seem to be just as difficult as ch 10 for 8.4, since it too grants their existence.

Or is the issue the relationship between idols and demons?

I should add that I don't have anything invested in the thoughts I placed up here -- it was something that occurred to me while listening to a paper and I have done no research on the question. My thoughts just appear to me to make sense of the cosmology behind Paul's thinking, which can maintain both that an idol is nothing and that to worship idols is to participate with demons. Let me add, though, that I may have overstated the apparent contrast between 1 Cor. 8 and 10 above, perhaps the result of having taught it recently, where one can play up contrasts a little to make the point. I hope to comment on the comments in due course.

Update (Wednesday, 17.44): As Stephen Carlson points out in Hypotyposeis, there are loads of interesting comments to this post, and I want to draw attention to them here, especially for those of you who read the RSS feed.

This has been pointed out by others (e.g. Stephen Carlson and Jim Davila) but it's worth another mention in spite of the fact that I had said that I would myself stop posting on this topic. Chris Weimer posts the following:

The post includes lines like "Personally I find the whole debate quite ludicrous" and "What is all this nonsense of being a club/association/whatever?" and "Honestly, folks, I don't see all the huff about this?" I feel a little chastened by some of Chris's remarks but in agreement with much of the post. Just a couple of minor points:

". . . At the SBL conference, for some reason I'm not exactly sure of, there was a biblioblogging session . . ."

It was because I was asked to put the session together, and was happy to do so. In fact the request came from two places, the SBL organizers, who wanted to find a space where blogging could be discussed at the meeting, and the CARG steering committee, who thought it would be a useful topic to discuss in their section. Perhaps we would have been better off not to have used the specific term "biblioblogging" (I wrote the title and blurb for the section), but I think it was a great idea to have a session to discuss blogging in our area. Why not? One of the most enjoyable sessions I've been to at the SBL, also one of the worst attended, was in 2002 (Toronto) on e-lists, in which I got together a panel to discuss e-lists in our area. Same reason: why not? It was also all white, male, and even had some of the same panelists as the blogging session three years later, and I think we also talked then about the lack of female e-listers. I've been thinking a bit recently about the comparisons between the e-lists and the blogs (e.g. in my Biblioblogger interview) and I find the some close comparisons -- comparatively few mainstream scholars, a good number of independent scholars, graduate students and so on. One difference is that no one ever (successfully) tried to create a collective name for e-lists in areas connected with academic Biblical Studies.

There's just one area where I think Chris misses it a bit:

Why are there not more female bibliobloggers? Does it really matter? Are we really going to quibble over whether results come from a male or female? In biblical and general antiquity studies, males dominate the field. Since blogging is merely an extension of a field, perhaps the problem lies deeper.

Of course it matters that there are not more women bloggers in our area, and not because we are more or less inclined to listen to an opinion depending on the gender of the author, but because none of us presume that males have a monopoly on intelligent discourse in our area. Given that males are dominating the blogging field in our area, and in an even higher proportion than they are dominating the academy more broadly, there are far too many female voices that we are not hearing. The issue became serious because the claim was being made that we male bloggers are in some way not just a symptom of the problem but also the cause of it, albeit inadvertently, by naming, including and excluding. My concern (e.g. mentioned here) is that our inevitable concern about the issue has the wrong result -- it unduly problematizes something that we are unlikely to be able to do anything about, and which we may make worse by the way we potentially isolate.

The third part of In the Footsteps of Jesus was broadcast at 8 pm GMT today (I managed to catch it live today, from my office at Duke). As usual, you can listen on-line if you missed it. At this stage, the website is showing the wrong URLs for transcript (broken) and episode (link is to part 2), but the main Radio 4 website has the correct link:

REGENT COLLEGE, an evangelical graduate school of Christian studies located in Vancouver, British Columbia, invites applications for a position in New Testament with expertise in Pauline studies to begin on 1 September 2006. The deadline for applications for the position is 31 January 2006. The criteria for this position are more fully described at the following web address: http://www.regent-college.edu/about_regent/employment.html. Applications along with curricula vitae should be sent to: Dr. Donald M. Lewis, Academic Dean, Regent College, 5800 University Blvd, Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 2E4. While we welcome all applicants, in accordance with Canadian immigration requirements, priority will be given to Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada.

Applications are invited for the post of warden/director of Tyndale House, Cambridge. Tyndale House has an internationally recognised reputation as a leading library and residential centre for biblical research. It was founded in 1944 in a spirit of loyalty to the historic Christian faith and is the research division of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship. It has close links with the University of Cambridge, including a formal association with St Edmund's College and a collaborative relationship with the Faculties of Divinity and Oriental Studies and the University Library.

Friday, December 02, 2005

By altering some words and deleting others, my student hoped to obscure the stolen material. This trick might have worked -- if I didn't have Google to track down phrases. Even with Google as an anti-plagiarist tool, the student might have gotten away with the plagiarism by altering more words.

Inevitably, though, Goodacre's principle proves its value, for somewhere in the paper of even a clever plagiarist, editorial fatigue sets in, and the plagiarist slips, allowing a telling phrase from the original to remain. In this particular case, the phrase, as noted above, was: "could not lead to large scale duplication."

In fact one of the things that made me realize the value of editorial fatigue as a possible way of telling the direction of dependence was seeing it in student essays. I remember a student in one of the first classes I taught in Birmingham in 1995 copying a paragraph from Sanders and Davies's Studying the Synoptic Gospels in which reference was being made to something Sanders and Davies had previously discussed but the student had not.

Jeffery's discussion about plagiarism is useful and interesting, and draws attention ot the value of Google as a tool to catch student plagiarists. I have used it the same way myself and have frequently been able to convict students on the basis of searches done via Google. I remain concerned about several things, though, in the student plagiarist culture:

(1) It's easier to catch the weak plagiarists who betray their sources all too quickly because they do not think to hide or know how to hide the distinctive phrases of their sources. But how easy is it to catch the better plagiarists, who can see the distinctive, Google-friendly phrases in their source material, and who change words but not sentence structure?

(2) On-line plagiarism is so easy to do that, as Jeffery points out, it is relatively easy to catch. But does this mean that some of our students are getting away with book-plagiarism all the more easily? If someone plagiarizes Sanders, Crossan or Wright, you can bet that we'll be able to find it. But if they plagiarize Howard Clark Kee, are we going to spot it?

(3) Does our satisfaction in discovering the on-line plagiarists mask us from seeing the students who have paid someone $75 to write their essay for them, or who have pulled their essay from a model stock essay for which they have paid $25 access? Google is not going to spot those, and however much we might suspect, are we going to be able to convict?

One of the things that this convinces me of is the importance of maintaining examinations as a key element in undergraduate assessment, however much students might prefer the take-home essay. In my courses at Duke, I have a variety of assessment methods in the same course, but with at least 50% going in as examination, one of the advantages of which is the confirmation that this element cannot have been plagiarized.

Addendum: I was once faced with a situation in which we had two very similar essays, but one was inferior to the other. A colleague argued that he thought the worse essay had been copied from the better essay. I found myself arguing that both had been copying from a hypothetical lost source, to the amusement of several other colleagues present at the examiners' meeting. A means of resolving the situation was suggested: we get both students in and interview them separately. And it turned out that I was wrong: there was no hypothetical third source. One student confessed to having copied from the other, and the other student admitted to having lent their work to the other, and was very annoyed that the other student had copied their work. The moral of the story: is it (a) Don't hypothesize unnecessary documents or (b) it'd be great if we could interview Matthew and Luke?

June 19 - July 1: Field trip in Greece & TurkeyJuly 3 - Aug 4th: Tyndale House Research Library

Accommodation is at Tyndale House, which has self-catering facilities and students have rights to eat at the University of Cambridge’s Graduate Centre.

Closing date for applications: 15th February. Successful applicants for the course will be advised within two weeks of this date.

The cost of the course is £2250 covers, breakfast, lectures, tuition and accommodation costs on the archaeological tour and the five weeks in Cambridge, plus estimated £250 travel expenses for the field trip. A non-refundable deposit of £200 is required on notification of acceptance for the course.

Airfares and travel costs will be the responsibility of the students. These include return fares to London for overseas students. These should not be booked without first consulting the Director for the exact departure dates and group travel.

Course credits can often be arranged for up to 9 semester units. Once we have received an application the Director will negotiate with your institution, explaining the syllabus and the uniqueness of the course in detail, in order to secure these credits.

. . . . This is a brilliant documentary series, one so thoroughly researched it is impossible not to feel a sense of engagement with it. I loved the papery sound of what, after all, are extremely speculative, not to say inward-looking debates (these fellows have hearts that flip over on hearing a new translation of a single Aramaic noun). But the programmes also have another ingredient: faith. For every cool offering from an academic, we hear an answering call from an intelligent believer. For the intelligent believer, the stones and the texts are in dialogue, not mutual opposition, and it was this notion that, at times, elevated In the Footsteps of Jesus, with all its facts and measured argument, to the realm of the spellbinding . . . .

Rubén Gómez comments on his Clippings Backlog and asks "Am I the only one . . . .?" No, it's at least me too. I have dozens in my clippings folder. Gems from all over the blogosphere, all sorts of interesting bits and bobs I wanted to mention and comment on. If you're thinking, "I wonder why Mark never commented on that brilliant post of mine", well, now you know. Of course one way round such things is the solo-blog, in which you only publish your own materials, don't link to others, don't have a blog-roll, but those are often the least interesting sorts of blogs.

For those who don't use Bloglines, the Clippings Folder is the place you put those blog posts (of others) that you want to save for later, to comment on when you next have a moment. But as Rubén points out, that time never seems to come. For me, it's a little like photocopying an article and not reading it, or downloading an article onto your computer and not reading it, or video-ing a television programme and not watching it. Somehow the act of clipping, photocopying, downloading or video-ing makes you feel less bad about not dealing with the item.

The radio programme featuring Stephen Carlson talking about Morton Smith's invention of Secret Mark, Keeping the Faith, is now available in an on-line archived version, either downloadable MP3 or a Real Audio stream:

Monday, November 28, 2005

You can read the transcript; the link to the listening URL was not working earlier on, so try this URL. Today's episode features David Neuhaus, John Dominic Crossan, Larry Hurtado, Tom Wright, Geza Vermes, David Rosen and me.

Update (9.48): the URL for listening to the series at the main link above is now working.

Update (19.23): a most enjoyable programme, a full hour on the topic, and unlike much radio it went at a leisurely pace so that there was time for the details to come through. I couldn't catch it all, unfortunately, with supper to cook, beds to make etc., but what I caught was good. One good point that I found it useful to have spelled out was the extent to which Smith disdained the fact that scholars often do not check their references; they don't do the kind of thorough research they should, something that explains the planting of the M. Madiotes clue. Highlight: Steve Shoemaker asks Stephen what Morton Smith would have thought about his book and Stephen replies: "I hope he would have said: 'Good job!'"

I think the more important point to explore is the question of identity and whether the biblioblogging community has an interest in creating an identity that perpetuates the framework and power structures found in the "real" biblical studies community.

My thoughts here would be that I don't see any such interest. On the contrary, the bibliobloggers are largely rebels who do not conform to the norms of the "biblical studies community". The conversations are not limited to those with tenured academic appointments; the bulk of biblioblogdom is populated by independent scholars and graduate students and one of the joys of the scene is its fundamental democratic impulse. In this respect, it imitates the better e-lists, which have the same democratic ideal in which it is the academic quality of the post that is the guide. So I'd say that far from perpetuating the framework and power structures in the "real" biblical studies community, we are counter-cultural, risky and rebellious. Paul later writes:

In some ways I doubt that the creation of a group identity was avoidable, however I am cautious about institutionalizing the group as the voice of biblical studies...and certainly that is part of the purpose of naming and identity.

I don't think that anyone has in mind biblioblogs becoming "the voice of biblical studies". On the contrary, you'd get a pretty skewed impression of the field if you only read the biblioblogs. In fact, as mentioned above, the biblioblogs, like blogs in general, are very often voices from the margins rather than the mainstream.

As Yasmin wrote in her post referenced above, "The problem I found was not so much with their demographic per se, but I was concerned with the low self-awareness that they had towards their position of power. " There needs to be a sensitivity or at least openness in questioning what is occurring within this group identity, protesting that access to blogs is equally open to all ignores the question of why this is not reflected in biblioblogs by placing the blame on those who are not involved (after all if access is open to all it must be their fault that they are not in dialogue).

I would say here that the sensitivity is very much present among bibliobloggers. The very fact that we problematized the relative lack of female bibliobloggers indicates our awareness of and concern about the imbalance. If there were no sensitivity to key issues like this, I doubt you'd have seen such an interesting discussion in the biblioblogs over the last week or two. Instead of slapping one another on the back and congratulating each other on a job well done, many have in fact focused largely on the one major issue of "naming" that Paul brought up in the session. Paul also writes:

I would suggest that there is an interest in maintaining power structures and institutional influence found in the parallel "real world" biblical studies discipline which is reflected within the biblioblogs. The power of the blog is one that favours the marginalized and minority and it is these groups that have exploited the medium in most other areas. The power of this voice runs against a formal discipline interested in perpetuating power structures and ladders; and one way of de-stabilizing this threat is to co-opt it into functioning as a medium which supports the structure rather than undermines it.

I'm interested that Paul sees this at work in the biblioblogs because it runs so strongly counter to my own experience, on which see above.

(Cartoon courtesy Tyler Williams). Is it time to announce the death of the biblioblog? Tim Bulkeley on Sansblogue (and it was great to hear in the SBL biblioblogging session that it is in fact pronounced "Sonn-blog", French style, and not "Sanz-blog") is resigning from the biblioblogging establishment, with the following thoughts:

. . . By naming we create a group, by discussing who is in (and therefore by implication who is out!) we create exclusivity. This is no longer the spirit of Blogaria, and I regret my phrase at the session about a virtual common-room, because one of the things I've greatly valued about the virtual one (an advantage that all the "real" ones, even those that seek to be more open, fail to realise) is its openness, that you can chat to anyone there.

Meanwhile, Jim Davila has a great general post on Paleojudaica, and he includes the following comments:

For the record (and I really don't think this should need to be said), first, I -- and I'm sure all other "bibliobloggers" -- would welcome more females on the biblioblog-roll and I hope any considering opening a blog will take the plunge. Second, if you (whatever your gender) do start a blog having to do with academic biblical studies, I encourage you to write whatever the heck you want to on it and to make up and follow your own rules, and if one of us tells you to do or not do one thing or another, just take this as well-intended advice that you can follow, modify, or ignore, entirely as it pleases you. That's what I do.

I've thought and thought about what Paul said and if I have him correctly, he was simply suggesting that the practice of "naming" can be at the same time an opportunity of "excluding". That is, to be sure, absolutely correct. For us to call ourselves "bibliobloggers", however, is meant not as an excluder (primarily) so much as a simple denominator. We certainly do "exclude" when we name . . . . .. . . . In the same sense, then, "bibliobloggers" denominate themselves in order to be distinguished in practice from those who are blogging about politics or dogs or smoking or Nintendo or any of the other subjects found in the blog world.

Meanwhile, David Meadows, the originator of the term, has a helpful post on RogueClassicism from which this is an excerpt:

I think you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope guys (and a few gals) ... it's a label we 'outsiders' apply to you ... you needn't apply it to yourselves; kind of like Romans calling Hellenes 'Graeci'. FWIW, I tried to come up with something similar for my Classics colleagues and 'Classicoblogs' simply didn't have the same 'catchiness' as 'Biblioblog' and I suspect it's because I'm an 'insider' in that group (or like to think of myself as same, despite the title of my blog).

No matter what you call it, there still exists a community of bloggers who like to link to each other and discuss topics that could be discussed at an SBL meeting.

Of course, the key phrase here is "no matter what you call it". I don't think anyone is planning on stopping blogging, so it all comes down to what we call it, indeed whether there is an "it" at all. The fact that there have been discussions about what a biblioblog is, and whether or not individuals even think of themselves as bibliobloggers, shows what a loose confederation we are dealing with here.

I suspect that there is a misapprehension around, and that absent of it, the problem vanishes. In her interesting post, Yasmin Finch writes:

I must just note, all this debate is particularly interesting in light of the relatively relaxed style of blogging; the policing of the biblioblog seems to have a disproportionately high priority.

This is contrary to my own experience and observations. I don't think that there is any "policing" around that I am aware of, certainly none that is direct. Indeed, I would say that "the relatively relaxed style of blogging" also characterizes those writing blogs that focus on academic Biblical Studies.

This is not to say that I did not share some of the concerns voiced by Paul Nikkel in the SBL CARG Biblioblogging section, perhaps not least having seen all nine of us men on the panel that I put together (it's all my fault, you see!), and I think that what surprised me was the extent to which something so ad hoc and evolutionary was potentially coming out wrong. Perhaps it was useful to see the impression that the all white, all male panel created, even if it is true that no one was able to suggest to me others who should have been included on the panel. (Bear in mind that I was asked to put it together in February).

Where I would locate my own concern over the all-white-male pannel of last week's SBL CARG session would not be over the question of "naming", but rather over our problematizing the relative lack of female bibliobloggers. The very act of specifically drawing attention to this can isolate it as a problem that has the unwelcome effect of drawing attention to the gender of every new blogger on the block, who might thereby feel more isolated and self-conscious than they otherwise might have been. All I'd say in my defence as one of those who did problematize this would be that the alternative would have been worse: I dislike the thought of our gathering as an all-male panel and not even showing some concern about the lack of female bloggers in our area.

As an antidote to the entire discussion, Tyler Williams has the great cartoon above on Codex: Blogspot.

As my closing thought, I would say: Write your blog on what you are interested in, and if people want to read it, they will read it, no matter what categories and sub-categories it may be thought to fall under. Blog on what you want to blog on, read blogs on what you want to read, and let the blogosphere continue to evolve and develop in its own unpredictable and unique way.

Friday, November 25, 2005

. . . . There's got to be a better method of absorbing new scholarship than listening to someone read a paper in a rapid monotone in a crowded, overheated room.

I quite agree.

I suggest, at the very least, these steps:(1) Graduate students must submit to the session chairs a version of what they plan to present; if it's too long, it should be either rejected or returned to the applicant for revision. I say "grad students" because they were the principal offenders (although I hasten to add that I heard more than one excellent paper by grad students). The SBL should also provide training, either live or online, for those who wish to present at the annual meeting.

Great suggestions. In theory, all new presenters should submit their full papers at the proposal stage. But there is a problem with this. If you are looking at dozens of proposals, reading through dozens of full papers at submission is time-consuming. But I, for one, would be keen to see more quality control, and in the Synoptics section we have vetted full papers. An element of the problem, and this is something we have found repeatedly in hte Synoptics, is that we get a great looking proposal, with a good abstract, and it does not deliver on the day. But here, I think we could all learn from one another's mistakes and keep an eye out.

On the training, what a great idea!

(2) Each section or group should have its own website, where planning and organization can take place, including updates on the actual room location. Preliminary papers can also be posted there; or presenters can upload their handouts before the meeting.

Excellent suggestions. One of the things that has concerned me this year, and I have blogged on this, is the low profile for the sections and on-line papers (e.g. here). I don't know if I am being thick on this one, but I can't even find the general list of the sections and groups at the SBL.

(3) Insufficient use has been made up to now of recording or podcasting. It seems to me that there are plenty of low-tech options for recording and making presentations available after the meeting in MP3 or other formats. These could be made available on the section websites or through other means. This would help alleviate the problem of inattention (can one really listen to five papers in a row?), overcrowding (ever missed a paper because there was no room to sit down?), or scheduling (some of the sessions I was interested in took place at the same time as the CARG panel).

Another interesting suggestion. And so, finally, to the "biblioblogging" session:

— I enjoyed the Biblioblogging session, mainly because it was fun to see the actual human beings in meatspace who are responsible for the blogs I read daily. But here's a little two-part eyewitness test for you. (1) When the panel session began, what was the order of seating, starting from Mark Goodacre? My memory is that it was this: Mark Goodacre, Rick Brennan [sic], Stephen Carlson, Torrey Seland, Jim Davila, me (Ed Cook), Tim Bulkeley, AKMA, and Jim West. (2) When the question "How many here are bloggers?" was asked, what percentage (roughly) raised their hands? I feel that it was no more than 50%, but I believe Stephen Carlson has blogged that it was "almost everyone." Any other opinions?

On (1): yes, I think that's my memory. On (2), I would say 80%. I saw one or two indicating a half-way hover with their hands, i.e. they have a blog but don't update it regularly.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Happy Thanksgiving to American readers all over the world (including Jim Davila). I am very much looking forward to my first American Thanksgiving. It's great, for a start, not to be at work (hmm: does blogging count as work?). I am about to try to make my first ever pecan pie. Wal Mart had sold out of chopped pecans, so we had to buy a load of uncracked ones and go through and crack them one by one.

I have a great deal to be thankful for this year, a safe arrival in a new country, a lovely new home, a great new job, a great new school for the kids, new friends and the promise of happy things ahead.

Update (Friday, 20.05): the pecan pie was a success! Well, it wasn't fantastic, but it wasn't at all bad. And some even had second helpings (I made lots). I think I might be able to get used to American baking. The key seems to be: shove lots of corn syrup in there. And my own special suggestion: triple the number of pecans suggested in the recipe. Here's the rough recipe I used: Mamma's Southern Pecan Pie.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

One or two additional general reflections, of varying degrees of importance:

(1) My move to the USA makes me even more conscious of what I (and many others) stand to lose when the divorce between AAR and SBL happens. The Duke reception featured many faculty and students past and present across the two societies; I met new colleagues there too, and won't do any longer after the divorce. Likewise old Birmingham friends -- a couple of my most enjoyable meetings were with AAR members, one at Birmingham and one who used to be at Birmingham. Is there anyone who thinks that the divorce is a good thing? I haven't yet met a single one.

(2) Why do people hover around the doorways of meetings? This annoying habit gives the impression, almost always incorrect, that the room is full, and it encourages other to join the loiterers. It discourages people to cut through the loiterers and go in to the room and find a seat. I say: make a decision and go in and sit down, or leave.

(3) Why do people put their papers and books and bags on seats when they can see that the room is nearly full? If there are 10 people in a 200 capacity room, fine: spread out! But if there are only 5 or 6 spare seats, keep the seat next to you free and then those who get past the loiterers in the doorway will have somewhere to sit other than the floor.

(4) Two and a half hour meetings are too long to go without providing a 5 minute break at some point for people to stretch their legs. If you are chairing a meeting, add a leg-stretch break.

(5) The timing within the sessions could often be more precise. Let's face it, a lot of people want to go to a paper here and a paper there, and vague timings, overrunning, etc., makes that more difficult.

(6) The SBL is an enormous meeting, and perhaps because of that fact one can take the organisation for granted. In spite of the odd problem here and there, in my experience there are only ever minor glitches. The meeting is superbly organized, and it struck me this year that we really ought to say thank you a bit more often. I suppose that because we can't put a face on the organizers, we often don't take the opportunity to praise them.

One last thing: this year was the most confusing I've seen in terms of publicizing where sessions take place. I am not sure it was a good decision to remove room listings from the main program book. I appreciate that this made it easier to update the room bookings online to note late changes, but even the downloadable PDF files (which I printed out) had a lot of errors. Next time I will know to ignore them and just go with the Annual Meetings At-A-Glance booklet distributed at the meeting, which did have accurate information.